The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-10-04
THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND
Bishop Chatard Discusses the Question
from Catholic Standpoint.
He Points Out Some of the Fallacies in the
Theories of Henry George and DR.. Nc
Glynn-What Constitutes Ownership.

| A fair audience attended the opening lecture
of the course of the Leonine Union, last even
ing, delivered by the Right Rev. T. S. Chatard
| D. D. The arrangement of light on the speak
| ers stand was rather bad, and somewhat inter
| fered with the Bishops delivery. but he was in
good voice and his address was listened to with
| close attention by those present He said that
/ the change now going in the world, by which
the masses are being moved from the state of
tutelage to the condition of individual freedom.
| brings questions that must be examined. They
| must be solved by the use of reason The IA
| theirs of the church, at the Council of Trent.
gave the highest testimony to the utility of rea-
| son, and denied that it could be in actual
opposition with faith.
The land question is one of such Importance
and breadth that one might we'll hesitate to
speak on it; and yet it is necessary meet and
expose the false notions concerning it which
have been spread abroad. and which menace the
very foundations of society Il have therefore,"
said the Bishop, undertaken to consider this
question. and particularly the branch of eminent
domain. What was the source of property 10
land2 1t is said by some that God made the
earth and gave it to to hold in common;
but that is assumption. Some political
but that is necessarily second
airy stage of possession, and accidental
in its nature. The common law, which nodded
our land systems apparently originated with
the Saxons From the description of their Gus
toms given by Tacitus it appears that, at the
earliest known period. they held their lands in
common. but divided them up annually in indi-
vidual holdings. giving larger portions to these
who had larger locks larger households to
maintain. Professor Stubs says that the
change to absolute ownership in severalty oc
Cured about the close of the Saxon period. At
that time there two classes of
ownership-the individual, which was
recorded. and therefore called book
land and the public, which called
folk land The beginning of the feudal system
was evidently in conquest Hence, so far as
the common laws history is concerned, we find
that holding in common decided by expert
ence to be impracticaole; and the feudal
system is historic record artificial. and
neither of them be considered
consistent with the law of nature Let
now look at the essence of things set forth
by philosophers in whose wisdom the world
had confidence Sir William Blackstone says
that the world became inhabited and
land for occupancy was reached with difficulty
the fruits OF the earth
of mankind, and agriculture came
into existence From this then arose the need of
greater permauence in property than mere
cupancy. Tlllage WAS necessary, and no man
would till the ground except he had
tainty of reapine the fruits. Necessity begot
property. Thomas Aquinas puts the same
theory perhaps more clearly. He says
thing Is fitted to another thing by what follows
from it; as, in ownership of land. the study of
the nature OF land shows that it is fitted for
ownership Air and running water. from their
nature. cannot be owned, for all men must
them and no man can retain more of
them than he uses. The fitness of one
thing to another is found by Of
two processes; first. by a simple consid-
Grafton of relation. that it is It for q father
to provide food for his child: second. BIZ an ex-
animation of what will result from fitting them
together. By the second process it is clearly
proper for an individual to have things for his
own, for first. he will take bstter care of what
is his own: and second, the affairs of all,wlt
progress more prosperously if each shall take
care of certain thing: and third. peace is thus
kept, for each is his posses
siOps. The community of possession is attri bu- :
ted to natural law not because it is laid down
therein, but because its opposite, the individual
ownership. appears to be thing of positive law,
which he defines as what the whole people by
public agreement establish. The will of the
public makes just anything that is not contrary
to natural law"
While nearly all Catholics hold to the right
fulness of individual ownership, many of them
are led into confusion by the law of eminent do
MAN, because they say that if you concede an
ownership in the government you give up the
whole to the communistic theory. Emf
nent domain does not mean an ownership greater
than the individual ownership, though that
idea it often advanced by those who do not get
clear of the fallacies of the feudal system. We
must remember that the feudal tenure came
from conquest and is therefore accidental in its
nature, lot fundamental. No growth from it
rise higher than source. We must go
to the original right for ideas. From
what have it appears
in accordance with natural law that individuals
should have their separate holdings in land. and
the community protect each one in his property
11xv ,x,tz, &c nxr;$h
vate ownership. but on some occasions 1t be-
comes necessary to do in order to protect the
remainder of the community, for example in
case of war. Henry Mills defines eminent do
main the power of the sovereign to condemn
private property for public use; compen-
sation for what is taken IS a natural right.
which exists in every government to control pri |
vate property for public welfare. 1t is primary
requisite that compensation be made, aud this |
is pecuniary In nature because the transaction |
is In effect compulsory purchase. Chancellor !
Kent defines i. the sovereign power to control
private property for public and for public |
use only; natural equity requires compensation. |
Hence. eminent domain is only a power |
control for public good. It'll not a re-entry into |
q complete ownership but merely the exercise |
of a care for the public welfare. 1t is right |
not to desDol the subject but TO protect him. |
The interest of the government in private land |
has greater extent 1t is nos an interest |
that can be sold 1t is like sovereignty; it is not
Ownership gives dominion over |
land; eminent domain does not. The conception |
OF ownership is or necessity preliminary to that
Of eminent domain. for there be control |
IN til there is something to control Ownership |
is subject to disposal: eminent domain is not
In conformity with these deductions of reason
rom natural law will be found numerous decis-
ons of the head of the apostolic
church, especially the decisions of Plus
TX and Leo Kill They declare that
natural right sanctions individual ownership in /
and, and denounce erroneous and failacious
The views of Socialists. Supported by reason
and faith in harmony, we may safely adhere
Ia IN 1nCf IN oil
nan In his right